No. 20-1499
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`
`AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, PETITIONER
`v.
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
`COURT OF REVIEW
`
`BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
`
`
`
`
`
` BRIAN H. FLETCHER
`Acting Solicitor General
`Counsel of Record
`MARK J. LESKO
`Acting Assistant Attorney
`General
`JEFFREY M. SMITH
`Attorney
`Department of Justice
`Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
`SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov
`(202) 514-2217
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`1. Whether this Court has
`jurisdiction under
`28 U.S.C. 1254(1) or 50 U.S.C. 1803(b) to issue a writ of
`certiorari to review the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-
`lance Court of Review’s decision in this matter.
`2. Whether this Court should issue a writ of manda-
`mus or common-law certiorari to review the Foreign In-
`telligence Surveillance Court of Review’s determination
`that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s claim
`of public access to classified opinions issued by the For-
`eign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`(I)
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Opinions below .............................................................................. 1
`Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1
`Statement ...................................................................................... 2
`A. Legal background ............................................................ 2
`B. The present controversy ................................................. 7
`Argument ..................................................................................... 10
`A. This Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a statutory
`writ of certiorari in this case ......................................... 12
`B. The petition does not satisfy the requirements for
`extraordinary relief under the All Writs Act .............. 14
`1. An extraordinary writ would not be in aid of
`this Court’s appellate jurisdiction ......................... 15
`2. No extraordinary circumstances would
`warrant the exercise of discretionary
`jurisdiction by this Court ....................................... 17
`3. Alternative avenues exist for petitioner to
`obtain adequate relief ............................................. 20
`4. The FISA Court of Review correctly declined
`to exercise jurisdiction over petitioner’s appeal .. 22
`C. Even if this Court and the lower courts had
`jurisdiction, petitioner’s First Amendment claim
`would not warrant this Court’s review ........................ 27
`Conclusion ................................................................................... 32
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`Accuracy Concerns Regarding FBI Matters
`Submitted to the FISC, In re, 411 F. Supp. 3d 333
`(FISA Ct. Dec. 17, 2019) .................................................... 22
`Alterra Healthcare Corp., In re, 353 B.R. 66
`(Bankr. D. Del. 2006) .......................................................... 25
`Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) .................. 24
`
`
`
`(III)
`
`

`

`IV
`
`Page
`
`Cases—Continued:
`Application of New York Times Co. To Unseal
`Wiretap & Search Warrant Materials, In re,
`577 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2009) ................................................ 30
`Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., In re, 226 B.R. 331
`(Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1998) ...................................................... 25
`Cary v. Curtis, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 236 (1845) ........................ 24
`Cheney v. United States Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367
`(2004) ........................................................................ 15, 20, 22
`CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) ......................................... 31
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) ........... 2, 4, 22
`Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) ...... 31
`Electronic Frontier Found. v. United States
`Dep’t of Justice, 376 F. Supp. 3d 1023
`(N.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................................. 20, 21
`El Vocero v. Puerto Rico, 508 U.S. 147 (1993) .................... 29
`Fahey, Ex parte, 332 U.S. 258 (1947) .................................. 18
`Flynt v. Lombardi, 782 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2015)................ 25
`Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596
`(1982) .............................................................................. 28, 29
`Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (1998) .................. 12, 16
`Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
`511 U.S. 375 (1994).............................................................. 25
`Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) ................................ 24
`Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)........... 17
`Milner v. Department of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562
`(2011) .................................................................................... 20
`Motion for Release of Court Records, In re,
`526 F. Supp. 2d 484 (FISA Ct. 2007) .......................... 29, 30
`Motions of Dow Jones & Co., In re, 142 F.3d 496
`(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 820 (1998) ................... 29
`Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) ...................... 16, 28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`V
`
`Page
`
`Cases—Continued:
`Opinions and Orders by the FISC Addressing Bulk
`Collection of Data Under the Foreign Intelligence
`Surveillance Act, In re, 957 F.3d 1344
`(FISA Ct. Rev. 2020) .......................................8, 9, 22, 26, 27
`Proceedings Required by § 702(i) of FISA
`Amendments Act of 2008, In re, Misc. No. 08–01,
`2008 WL 9487946 (FISA Ct. Aug. 27, 2008)..................... 22
`Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. v. Newton,
`139 S. Ct. 1881 (2019) ......................................................... 13
`Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349 (1996) ............................. 26
`Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 478 U.S. 1
`(1986) .................................................................. 28, 29, 30, 31
`Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21 (1943)... 15, 16
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83
`(1998) .................................................................................... 27
`Symington, In re, 209 B.R. 678 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997) ...... 26
`Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210
`(9th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................... 30
`United States Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts,
`492 U.S. 136 (1989).............................................................. 20
`United States v. Cavanagh, 807 F.2d 787
`(9th Cir. 1987) ........................................................................ 2
`United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009)..................... 15
`United States v. Dickinson, 213 U.S. 92 (1909) ............ 15, 23
`United States v. El-Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158
`(D.C. Cir. 1997) ................................................................... 30
`Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (1967) ............................ 18
`Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 556 U.S. 189 (2012) .......................... 27
`
`Constitution, statutes, and rules:
`U.S. Const.:
`Art. III, § 2 ....................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`

`

`VI
`
`Page
`Constitution, statutes, and rules—Continued:
`Amend. I .................................................................. passim
`All Writs Act:
`28 U.S.C. 1651 .............................................................. 1, 14
`28 U.S.C. 1651(a) ................................................... 9, 14, 15
`Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
`Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-261,
`Tit. I, § 101(a)(2), 122 Stat. 2437.......................................... 4
`Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978,
`Pub. L. No. 95-511, Tit. I, § 101, 92 Stat. 1783 ................... 2
`Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 ................... 11, 18
`5 U.S.C. 552(b) ................................................................. 21
`5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1) ............................................................ 21
`Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995,
`Pub. L. No. 103-359, § 807(a)(3) .......................................... 4
`108 Stat. 3443 ..................................................................... 4
`Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999,
`Pub. L. No. 105-272, § 601(2), 112 Stat. 2404 ..................... 4
`§ 602, 112 Stat. 2410 .......................................................... 4
`USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-23,
`129 Stat. 268 ........................................................ 6, 18, 19, 21
`5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) ............................................................. 21
`28 U.S.C. 41 ............................................................................ 12
`28 U.S.C. 43(a) ....................................................................... 21
`28 U.S.C. 1254 ............................................................ 12, 13, 16
`28 U.S.C. 1254(1) ................................................... 1, 12, 13, 16
`28 U.S.C. 1254(2) ......................................................... 6, 10, 13
`28 U.S.C. 1291 ........................................................................ 23
`28 U.S.C. 1331 ........................................................................ 23
`50 U.S.C. 1803(a) ..................................................................... 4
`50 U.S.C. 1803(a)(1) ............................................................... 23
`50 U.S.C. 1803(a)-(b) ............................................................... 2
`
`
`
`

`

`VII
`
`Page
`Statutes and rules—Continued:
`50 U.S.C. 1803(b) ................................................... 4, 12, 13, 14
`50 U.S.C. 1803(c) ................................................................ 3, 29
`50 U.S.C. 1803(d) ................................................................... 23
`50 U.S.C. 1803( j) ...................................................................... 6
`50 U.S.C. 1803(k) ....................................................... 10, 12, 15
`50 U.S.C. 1803(k)(1) ........................................................... 6, 13
`50 U.S.C. 1803(i) ...................................................................... 6
`50 U.S.C. 1804(a) ................................................................... 13
`50 U.S.C. 1821-1829 ................................................................. 4
`50 U.S.C. 1822(b) ................................................................... 13
`50 U.S.C. 1822(c) ................................................................ 5, 23
`50 U.S.C. 1822(d) ............................................................... 5, 23
`50 U.S.C. 1841-1846 ................................................................. 4
`50 U.S.C. 1842(a) ................................................................... 14
`50 U.S.C. 1842(b)(1) ................................................................. 5
`50 U.S.C. 1842(d)(3) ................................................................. 5
`50 U.S.C. 1861-1862 ................................................................. 4
`50 U.S.C. 1861(a) ................................................................... 14
`50 U.S.C. 1861(b)(1)(a) ............................................................ 5
`50 U.S.C. 1861(c)(4) ................................................................. 5
`50 U.S.C. 1861(f )(2) ................................................................. 5
`50 U.S.C. 1861(f )(3) ................................................................. 5
`50 U.S.C. 1871(c)(1) ......................................................... 18, 19
`50 U.S.C. 1871(c)(2) ......................................................... 18, 19
`50 U.S.C. 1872(a) (Supp. V 2015) ............................... 6, 19, 20
`50 U.S.C. 1872(c) (Supp. V 2015) ................................ 7, 19, 20
`50 U.S.C. 1881-1881(g) ............................................................ 4
`50 U.S.C. 1881a( j)(1)(A) .......................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881a( j)(4)(A) .......................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881a( j)(4)(D) ......................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881a(i)(4) ................................................................ 5
`
`
`

`

`VIII
`
`Page
`Statutes and rules—Continued:
`50 U.S.C. 1881a(i)(5)(A) .......................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881a(i)(6)(A) .......................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881a(i)(6)(B) .......................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881b(a)(1) ............................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881b(f )(1) ............................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881b(f )(2) ............................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881c(a)(1) ............................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881c(e)(1) ............................................................... 5
`50 U.S.C. 1881c(e)(2) ............................................................... 5
`Sup. Ct. R.:
`Rule 10 .............................................................................. 18
`Rule 20.1 ......................................................... 14, 15, 17, 20
`United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
`Court R. P. 62(a) ................................................................. 22
`
`Miscellaneous:
`Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and
`Procedure (3d ed. 2008) ........................................................ 26
`Edward A. Hartnett, Not the King’s Bench,
`20 Const. Comm. 283 (2003) ............................................... 17
`Foreign Intelligence Electronic Surveillance:
`Hearings on H.R. 5794, H.R. 9745, H.R. 7308, and
`H.R. 5632 Before the Subcomm. on Legislation of
`the House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelli-
`gence, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978) ....................................... 3
`Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
`Additional Release of FISA Section 702
`Documents, https://www.icontherecord.tumblr.
`com/post/161824569523/additional-release-of-fisa-
`section-702-documents ....................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IX
`
`Page
`
`Miscellaneous—Continued:
`Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
`Release of FISA Title IV and V Documents,
`https://www.icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/
`165800143933/relerel-of-fisa-title-iv-and-v-
`documents-september ........................................................ 18
`Security Procedures Established Pursuant to Public
`Law No. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783, as Amended, by the
`Chief Justice of the United States for the Foreign
`Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign
`Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
`(Feb. 21, 2013) ................................................................... 3, 4
`S. Rep. No. 604, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) ........................ 2
`S. Rep. No. 701, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978) ......................... 2
`Stephen M. Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice
`(10th ed. 2013) ............................................................... 12, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`
`No. 20-1499
`AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, PETITIONER
`v.
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
`COURT OF REVIEW
`
`
`
`BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
`
`
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
`Court of Review (Pet. App. 1a-3a) is not reported in the
`Federal Reporter but is available at 2020 WL 6888073.
`The opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
`Court (Pet. App. 4a-7a) is not reported in the Federal
`Supplement but is available at 2020 WL 5637419.
`JURISDICTION
`The judgment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-
`lance Court of Review was entered on November 19,
`2020. The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on
`April 19, 2021. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked
`under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1) and 50 U.S.C. 1803(b). In the
`alternative, petitioner seeks an extraordinary writ un-
`der 28 U.S.C. 1651.
`
`(1)
`
`

`

`2
`
`STATEMENT
`
`A. Legal Background
`1. In 1978, “after years of debate,” Clapper v. Am-
`nesty Int’l, 568 U.S. 398, 402 (2013), Congress enacted
`the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Pub.
`L. No. 95-511, Tit. I, § 101, 92 Stat. 1783, to establish a
`“secure framework by which the Executive Branch may
`conduct legitimate electronic surveillance for foreign in-
`telligence purposes within the context of this Nation’s
`commitment to privacy and individual rights.” S. Rep.
`No. 604, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 15 (1977). In constructing
`a secure framework for judicial review, “Congress cre-
`ated two specialized courts,” Clapper, 568 U.S. at 402,
`to provide “neutral and responsible oversight of the
`government’s activities in foreign intelligence surveil-
`lance,” United States v. Cavanagh, 807 F.2d 787, 790
`(9th Cir. 1987)—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
`Court (FISC) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
`Court of Review (FISA Court of Review). 50 U.S.C.
`1803(a)-(b).
`Congress determined that “consolidation of judicial
`authority” in these specialized courts was necessary be-
`cause of “[t]he need to preserve secrecy for sensitive
`counterintelligence sources and methods.” S. Rep. No.
`701, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1978) (Senate Intelligence
`Committee Report). An earlier version of the FISA bill
`would have empowered select district judges to adjudi-
`cate FISA applications, but Congress instead created
`the FISC “upon the recommendation of the General
`Counsel of the Administrative Office of the U.S.
`Courts.” Id. at 47-48 & n.26. In testimony before the
`U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Com-
`mittee on Intelligence, the General Counsel explained
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`
`that judges on this new court “would be chosen with dis-
`cretion” and “could be relied upon to maintain the secu-
`rity of intelligence.” Foreign Intelligence Electronic
`Surveillance: Hearings on H.R. 5794, H.R. 9745, H.R.
`7308, and H.R. 5632 Before the Subcomm. on Legisla-
`tion of the House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelli-
`gence, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 74 (1978) (statement of Carl
`H. Imlay).
`To further protect the secrecy and integrity of the
`intelligence collection process, Congress provided that
`the FISC’s files, including its orders, “shall be main-
`tained under security measures established by the
`Chief Justice in consultation with the Attorney Gen-
`eral” and the Nation’s top intelligence official, originally
`the Director of Central Intelligence and now the Direc-
`tor of National Intelligence. 50 U.S.C. 1803(c). The cur-
`rently applicable Security Procedures were issued by
`the Chief Justice in 2013. See Security Procedures Es-
`tablished Pursuant to Public Law No. 95-511, 92 Stat.
`1783, as Amended, by the Chief Justice of the United
`States for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
`and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Re-
`view (Feb. 21, 2013). These Security Procedures pro-
`vide for the judges and staff of the FISC and the FISA
`Court of Review to undergo appropriate FBI back-
`ground checks “under applicable Executive Branch
`standards for investigations performed in support of
`determinations of eligibility for access to sensitive com-
`partmented information or other classified national se-
`curity information.” Id. ¶¶ 3, 4. And they state that
`“[m]embers of the court and court personnel shall be
`briefed on security measures appropriate to the func-
`tions of the court by designees of the Attorney General
`and the Director of National Intelligence.” Id. ¶ 9. The
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`
`Security Procedures further require that “all court rec-
`ords (including notes, draft opinions, and related mate-
`rials) that contain classified national security infor-
`mation are maintained according to applicable Execu-
`tive Branch security standards for storing and handling
`classified national security information.” Id. ¶ 7.
`2. Congress carefully delineated the jurisdiction of
`the two specialized FISA courts. As originally enacted,
`FISA vested the FISC with “jurisdiction to hear appli-
`cations for and grant orders approving electronic sur-
`veillance” for foreign intelligence purposes. 50 U.S.C.
`1803(a). Congress vested the FISA Court of Review, in
`turn, with “jurisdiction to review the denial of any
`[such] application.” 50 U.S.C. 1803(b). And it vested
`this Court with jurisdiction to review a decision of
`the FISA Court of Review, “on petition of the United
`States for a writ of certiorari,” if the FISA Court of
`Review determined that “the application was properly
`denied.” Ibid.
`Congress has since amended FISA on several occa-
`sions, adding additional foreign intelligence collection
`tools. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 404.1 As it has done so,
`Congress has also added additional specific grants of
`jurisdiction to the FISC, the FISA Court of Review, and
`this Court. The FISC now has jurisdiction over proceed-
`ings instituted by the government related to several
`
`1 See, e.g., Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995,
`Pub. L. No. 103-359, § 807(a)(3), 108 Stat. 3443 (adding 50 U.S.C.
`1821-1829); Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999,
`Pub. L. No. 105-272, § 601(2), 112 Stat. 2404 (adding 50 U.S.C. 1841-
`1846); Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Pub. L.
`No. 105-272, § 602, 112 Stat. 2410 (adding 50 U.S.C. 1861-1862);
`Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of
`2008, Pub. L. No. 110-261, Tit. I, § 101(a)(2), 122 Stat. 2437 (adding
`50 U.S.C. 1881-1881g).
`
`
`
`

`

`5
`
`types of foreign intelligence techniques. See 50 U.S.C.
`1822(c) (physical search); 50 U.S.C. 1842(b)(1) (pen reg-
`ister or trap and trace device); 50 U.S.C. 1861(b)(1)(a)
`(order for the production of tangible things); 50 U.S.C.
`1881a( j)(1)(A) (certain targeting of non-U.S. persons lo-
`cated abroad); 50 U.S.C. 1881b(a)(1), 1881c(a)(1) (cer-
`tain targeting of U.S. persons located abroad).
`Consistent with the original mandate, if the FISC
`denies the relief sought by the government, the FISA
`Court of Review has jurisdiction to review the FISC’s
`decision. See 50 U.S.C. 1842(d)(3) and 1861(c)(4) (incor-
`porating review procedures of Section 1803); 50 U.S.C.
`1822(d), 1881a( j)(4)(A), 1881b(f )(1) and 1881c(e)(1) (cre-
`ating similar review procedures). And if the FISA Court
`of Review affirms the FISC’s denial of the govern-
`ment’s request for relief, this Court has jurisdiction to
`review the FISA Court of Review’s decision on the gov-
`ernment’s filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari. See
`50 U.S.C. 1822(d), 1842(d)(3), 1861(c)(4), 1881a( j)(4)(D),
`1881b(f )(2), and 1881c(e)(2).
`Apart from matters instituted by the United States,
`the FISC’s only jurisdiction is over certain proceedings
`brought by recipients of FISA process. See 50 U.S.C.
`1861(f )(2), 1881a(i)(4); cf. 50 U.S.C. 1881a(i)(5)(A) (con-
`ferring jurisdiction on the FISC over certain petitions
`for an order to compel compliance). In such a case, ei-
`ther the government or the recipient of FISA process
`may appeal an adverse FISC decision to the FISA
`Court of Review. 50 U.S.C. 1861(f )(3), 1881a(i)(6)(A).
`After the FISA Court of Review rules, either the gov-
`ernment or the FISA-process recipient may petition
`this Court for a writ of certiorari. 50 U.S.C. 1861(f )(3),
`1881a(i)(6)(B).
`
`
`
`

`

`6
`
`3. In 2015, Congress enacted the USA FREEDOM
`Act, Pub. L. No. 114-23, 129 Stat. 268. In response to
`concerns arising from the fact that the FISC’s cases
`are, by their nature and by statutory requirement, se-
`cret and predominantly ex parte, Congress amended
`FISA to provide that following the FISC’s issuance of a
`decision, the FISC may certify a question of law to the
`FISA Court of Review, permitting appellate review in
`ex parte matters where the government prevailed and
`there is no party having a right to appeal. 50 U.S.C.
`1803( j). Similarly, the FISA Court of Review may cer-
`tify to this Court a question of law “as to which instruc-
`tions are desired.” 28 U.S.C. 1254(2); see 50 U.S.C.
`1803(k)(1). The USA FREEDOM Act also added provi-
`sions permitting the FISC and the FISA Court of Re-
`view, in appropriate circumstances, to appoint an ami-
`cus curiae in order to provide additional perspective
`and legal argument to the FISC and the FISA Court of
`Review in their consideration of a novel or significant
`interpretation of the law. See 50 U.S.C. 1803(i).
`In addition, to promote transparency, the USA
`FREEDOM Act also amended FISA to provide that,
`upon issuance of a decision, order, or opinion by the
`FISC or the FISA Court of Review “that includes a sig-
`nificant construction or interpretation of any provision
`of law,” the Director of National Intelligence, in consul-
`tation with the Attorney General, must conduct a de-
`classification review and “make publicly available to the
`greatest extent practicable each such decision, order, or
`opinion.” 50 U.S.C. 1872(a) (Supp. V 2015). If the Di-
`rector of National Intelligence, in consultation with the
`Attorney General, determines that a waiver of that re-
`quirement “is necessary to protect the national security
`of the United States or properly classified intelligence
`
`
`
`

`

`7
`
`sources or methods,” the government must, instead,
`“make[ ] publicly available an unclassified statement
`* * * summarizing the significant construction or inter-
`pretation of any provision of law.” 50 U.S.C. 1872(c)
`(Supp. V 2015).
`B. The Present Controversy
`1. a. Petitioner initiated this dispute by filing a
`stand-alone motion with the FISC in 2016, unrelated to
`any pending matter, seeking access to all FISC “opin-
`ions and orders containing novel or significant interpre-
`tations of law issued between September 11, 2001, and
`the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act on June 2,
`2015.” Pet. App. 8a; see id. at 8a-63a. Petitioner argued
`that the FISC had jurisdiction over the motion under
`its “inherent powers, including ‘supervisory power over
`its own records and files.’ ” Id. at 18a (citation omitted).
`Petitioner asserted that the FISC’s “significant legal
`interpretations * * * are subject to the public’s First
`Amendment right of access.” Id. at 9a. And it argued
`that “[a]ny limits on the public’s right of access” must
`be “narrowly tailored” to preventing “a substantial
`probability of harm to a compelling interest”; that there
`must be no “alternative means to protect that interest”;
`and that the limits must be “demonstrably effective in
`avoiding that harm.” Id. at 12a; see id. at 34a-38a.
`Petitioner asked the court to “order the government
`to promptly process and prepare for publication opin-
`ions and orders of th[e FISC] containing novel or sig-
`nificant interpretations of law.” Pet. App. 12a. And it
`asked that “the Court itself * * * ensure that any re-
`dactions” to those opinions are narrowly tailored to
`serve a compelling governmental interest, such as pro-
`tecting intelligence sources and methods. Id. at 37a.
`Petitioner contended that “the standards that justify
`
`
`

`

`8
`
`classification do not always satisfy the strict constitu-
`tional standard,” and that “executive-branch decisions
`cannot substitute for the judicial determination re-
`quired by the First Amendment.” Id. at 40a.
`b. The FISC dismissed petitioner’s motion for lack
`of jurisdiction, relying on the FISA Court of Review’s
`decision in In re Opinions and Orders by the FISC Ad-
`dressing Bulk Collection of Data Under the Foreign In-
`telligence Surveillance Act, 957 F.3d 1344, 1350-1351,
`1355 (2020) (per curiam) (In re Opinions Addressing
`Bulk Collection). Pet. App. 4a-7a.
`In re Opinions Addressing Bulk Collection involved
`a similar records request made to the FISC for a nar-
`rower category of FISC opinions. See 957 F.3d at 1347-
`1348. After the FISC dismissed that motion, the FISA
`Court of Review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the
`movant’s petition for review or, in the alternative, peti-
`tion for a writ of mandamus. The FISA Court of Review
`held that “it [was] clear from the text of [FISA] that
`Congress has considered carefully the scope of the
`court’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 1350; see ibid. (“FISA
`clearly delineates the types of disputes that fall within
`our appellate jurisdiction.”). The FISA Court of Review
`held that “[t]here can be no question that the Movants’
`Petition does not fall within any of the categories of ju-
`risdiction enumerated” in FISA, and that “it is equally
`clear that the Movants are not one of the petitioners au-
`thorized by Congress to seek review before our Court.”
`Id. at 1351.
`The FISA Court of Review also declined in In re
`Opinions Addressing Bulk Collection to exercise any
`inherent ancillary jurisdiction over the movant’s re-
`quest. 957 F.3d at 1357. The court reasoned that such
`
`
`
`

`

`9
`
`an exercise of discretionary authority was not appropri-
`ate where “the Movants filed a motion in a new ‘miscel-
`laneous’ case seeking the disclosure of non-public mate-
`rial which has been deemed classified by the Executive
`Branch and to which the Movants have not established
`a factual connection.” Ibid. (emphasis and footnote omit-
`ted). And the court further determined that it lacked the
`power to issue an extraordinary writ under the All Writs
`Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), because any such writ would not
`be in aid of the court’s jurisdiction. In re Opinions Ad-
`dressing Bulk Collection, 957 F.3d at 1357-1358.
` Relying on In re Opinions Addressing Bulk Collec-
`tion, the FISC held in this case that it was similarly “not
`empowered” to consider “freestanding motions filed by
`persons who are not authorized by FISA to invoke [the
`FISC’s] jurisdiction.” Pet. App. 6a (citing 957 F.3d at
`1350-1351). The court likewise declined to exercise an-
`cillary jurisdiction over the matter. Ibid. The FISC ex-
`plained that, in light of its “ ‘significantly limited powers
`carefully delineated by Congress,’ ” any inherent discre-
`tionary authority “must be exercised with restraint, dis-
`cretion, and great caution.” Id. at 5a-6a (quoting In re
`Opinions Addressing Bulk Collection, 957 F.3d at 1356-
`1357); see id. at 6a. And the FISC observed that peti-
`tioner “had not been involuntarily haled into court, did
`not seek to assert rights in an ongoing action, did not
`establish a factual connection to the classified material,
`and did not present circumstances warranting the exer-
`cise of the [court’s] inherent judicial power to enforce
`its mandates and orders or protect the integrity of its
`proceedings and processes.” Id. at 6a.
`2. Petitioner filed a petition for review or, in the al-
`ternative, for a writ of mandamus with the FISA Court
`of Review. See Notice of Appeal, No. Misc. 20-02 (FISA
`
`
`
`

`

`10
`
`Ct. Rev. Oct. 14, 2020).2 Petitioner “recognize[d] that
`[the] Court [of Review] ha[d] previously determined
`that it does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal
`or petition for a writ of mandamus filed by a movant
`claiming a First Amendment right of public access to
`the FISC’s legal opinions.” Id. at 1 (citing In re Opin-
`ions Addressing Bulk Collection, supra). But peti-
`tioner stated that it was submitting its petition “in order
`to preserve its ability to seek further review.” Ibid.
`After the court ordered petitioner to show cause why
`the court possessed jurisdiction, petitioner asked the
`court to “clarify or revisit” its decision in In re Opinions
`Addressing Bulk Collection. Pet. App. 2a (citation
`omitted).
`The FISA Court of Review dismissed the petition.
`Pet. App. 1a-3a. The court “decline[d] [petitioner’s]
`invitation to revisit [its] recent decision” in In re Opin-
`ions Addressing Bulk Collection. Id. at 3a. And the
`court concluded that, under that decision, it lacked “ju-
`risdiction to consider [petitioner’s] current claims.”
`Ibid. “In light of that conclusion,” the court further de-
`termined that “this case does not present a question of
`law as to which instructions from the Supreme Court
`are desired.” Ibid. (citing 50 U.S.C. 1803(k); 28 U.S.C.
`1254(2)).
`
`ARGUMENT
`Petitioner asks this Court to grant review to con-
`sider (1) whether the FISC and the FISA Court of
`Review erred by dismissing petitioner’s motion and ap-
`peal for lack of jurisdiction, and (2) whether the First
`
`
`2 The records fr